Fixing Our Broken Immigration System Through Executive Action – Key Facts

http://www.dhs.gov/immigration-action

by kmfrk • 12 years ago

26 10 12 years ago

seanieb• 12 years ago

"Support High-skilled Business and Workers" - http://www.dhs.gov/sites/default/files/publications/14_1120_...

Am I correct in thinking that this doesn't amount to anything big for H-1B holders who are seeking a green card? It will speed up the application process initially, those who were waiting along time will get their Green Card faster, but then it'll grind to halt until the following years quota comes into play. Am I missing something?

Juneau• 12 years ago

I was expecting more precise details.. For example we know that they want to increase the scope of STEM OPT program but we don't how long they gonna extend or if there are changes, will they apply to the candidates already in OPT. Its more like directives.. I am not sure if this is how executive action works ??

*edit: typos

rbanffy• 12 years ago

This is a just series of directions to the USCIS. Well see the details when the USCIS publishes the new rules as directed. It'll take some time and probably face opposition from the legislative branch too, so you should not expect anything in the very short term.

greg• 12 years ago

There is one new statement specifically referring to start-ups:

"Second, pursuant to the "significant public benefit" parole authority under section 6 212(d)(5) ofthe INA, USCIS should propose a program that will permit DHS to grant parole status, on a case-by-case basis, to inventors, researchers, and founders ofstart-up enterprises who may not yet qualify for a national interest waiver, but who have been awarded substantial U.S. investor financing or otherwise hold the promise of innovation and job creation through the development of new technologies or the pursuit of cutting- edge research. Parole in this type of circumstance would allow theseindividuals to temporarily pursue research and development ofpromising new ideas and businesses in the United States, rather than abroad. This regulation will include income and resource thresholds to ensure that individuals eligible for parole under this program will not be eligible for federal public benefits or premium tax credits under the Health Insurance Marketplace of the Affordable Care Act."

From the linked document http://www.dhs.gov/sites/default/files/publications/14_1120_...:

jokoon• 12 years ago

http://i.imgur.com/n9uiP5G.png

those r and f are malformed. using firefox latest on win7.

is this a webfont or a css3 bug ?

netcan2• 12 years ago

I realize that a government or legislature deals in a world of compromises posing as moral imperative, but on immigration specifically I find it hard to stomach.

I think immigration systems are inherently broken. Free movement is a basic freedom. The right to take employment is a basic right. All compromises that make these rights and freedoms subservient to an immigration policy are inherently broken by the standards I consider moral.

Add to that the fact that many of the focuses on the problem with immigrants are xenophobic at their core, whether obvious or not.

This isn't just a theoretical objection, we can see the basic compromises at a high level poisoning everything.

Take "migrant workers" as a category. Their right to be present is inherently linked to employment. This gives their employer a kind of power over them that is inconsistent with liberal democratic civil rights. They don't vote. Aren't represented. Take this to an extreme and we end up with something like the gulf states, societies where migrant workers are the majority and have their rights limited in ways that harken to Ancient slave-citizen societies.

Thee's an old cliche that 'freedom is indivisible.' It's crude, but I think there's a lot to it. Once freedom of movement is limited, it can be negotiated. Those granted permission do so are asked to forfeit rights or they immigrate illegally and forfeit rights. In either case we end up with societies where not everyone has the same rights. The lack of freedom permeates.

I really do hope that eventually we will be in a world where freedom of movement is a universal human right.

Shivetya• 12 years ago

I am not against free movement between countries, however I do not feel anyone is entitled to move into another country and expecting a hand out. Immigrants used to move to other countries fully expecting to bust their ass integrating into society, the goal was to make their children's lives better.

The issue here is that this change will damage the job prospects of the underemployed and poor that are already here and divert resources aimed at helping them. We are basically importing a new underclass in many cases which unless there is work for them means they many get sucked into the criminal world, exploited and generally worse off. Why do I say underclass, because most will not be eligible for assistance.

Freedom comes with responsibility, to yourself and those whom live around you. There are many things wrong in our immigration policy, the fees alone are silly. However executive actions may not be the best route. It is a pure political play of a man whose actions were timed to after an election and after he lost support of the Senate. If he was so concerned he would have done it his first two years in office.

As to the benefits and why each element is good or bad, the information at http://www.cato.org/blog/obamas-immigration-executive-order-... is invaluable.

netcan2• 12 years ago

Just the fact that most people in most places immediate reaction this kind of idea is "handouts" is proof of a problem. We don't have that kind of reaction to people "expecting handouts" who aren't immigrants. Immigrants as a whole are usually members of lower middle classes. Not huge tax contributors, but not a welfare dependent group either.

The biggest welfare dependent groups within most countries are entrenched subcultures that have built up the habit over 2 or more generations.

There is no reason to assume on the whole that immigrants are an economic drain. The huge gap between people's instinctive reaction and reality, is IMO xenophobia.

Anyway, I think economics might be part of the practicalities, but shouldn't be the heart of the discussion. This is a fundamental moral issue, not an economic one.

SubuSS• 12 years ago

In theory, a very valid point.

In practice though, humanity is very varied and is of a thousand inherently contradicting beliefs. Unless we find a way to ensure that local interests ( that the locals have worked so hard to build and conserve ) are protected from herding behavior, local communities/values don't get destroyed just because they got slashdotted etc. this is not possible at all. Not to mention what over-population and sudden influx of a huge # of people can do to an area.

This is going to sound like a military hiring rhetoric but, there are many many people out there who would love to tell you what to do/how to live/what to eat etc. and hurt you if you don't follow them. Societies normalize around local 'wackiness' / 'norm' so to speak. Allowing free movement would mean losing those cultural identities per se and I don't think we are ready for that yet. Right now, People who want peace are the ones who should be willing to fight most for it.

FWIW - I am an immigrant. I have seen the other side of the world so to speak and can totally appreciate why people want to move to USA.

edent• 12 years ago

We have free movement of Capital - why don't we have free movement of Labour?

If a factory or call centre can move its operations anywhere in the world, why shouldn't workers also be able to relocate to an area which is more profitable for them?

Fixing Our Broken Immigration System Through Executive Action – Key Facts

Related Stories